Comments on: Rawlsiana http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/17/rawlsiana/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:14:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: zdenek http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/17/rawlsiana/comment-page-1/#comment-148280 zdenek Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:08:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4437#comment-148280 very interesting post but probably not accurate to describe Rawls criticism as criticism of capitalism as such i.e. it does not say that the bad consequences such as meaningless consumerism and so on are inescapable if capitalism is in place. It seems in other words that Rawls is worried about a specific flavour only ( where emphasis is on profit as opposed to prosperity and where the game is strictly zero-sum ). And it seems to me that Van Parijs interprets Rawls remarks in this way also because he says that he agrees with Ralws in this respect but goes on to suggest 'cushioning' mechanisms. This would explain ofcourse why Rawls is not openly hostile to capitalism in his T J. very interesting post but probably not accurate to describe Rawls criticism as criticism of capitalism as such i.e. it does not say that the bad consequences such as meaningless consumerism and so on are inescapable if capitalism is in place. It seems in other words that Rawls is worried about a specific flavour only ( where emphasis is on profit as opposed to prosperity and where the game is strictly zero-sum ). And it seems to me that Van Parijs interprets Rawls remarks in this way also because he says that he agrees with Ralws in this respect but goes on to suggest ‘cushioning’ mechanisms. This would explain ofcourse why Rawls is not openly hostile to capitalism in his T J.

]]> By: y81 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/17/rawlsiana/comment-page-1/#comment-148203 y81 Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:16:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4437#comment-148203 Curiously, a critique of capitalism from what might be considered the right, i.e., Rawls doesn't say that capitalism oppresses the poor, but that it just gives everybody lots of stuff, when what people really want is local attachment etc. I think G.K. Chesterton (or maybe Patrick Buchanan) would have said about the same. It is, of course, common among those with high SAT scores to believe that they know what everyone else "really" wants. Curiously, a critique of capitalism from what might be considered the right, i.e., Rawls doesn’t say that capitalism oppresses the poor, but that it just gives everybody lots of stuff, when what people really want is local attachment etc. I think G.K. Chesterton (or maybe Patrick Buchanan) would have said about the same.

It is, of course, common among those with high SAT scores to believe that they know what everyone else “really” wants.

]]> By: derek http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/17/rawlsiana/comment-page-1/#comment-148194 derek Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:46:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4437#comment-148194 Pardon my ignorance, but what do modern political thinkers mean when they say "capitalism"? What is it, what's the definition? I'm used to thinking of capitalism as the habit of owning stuff and offering workers the privilege of using it to make money, in return for a portion of that money. Alternatively, owning stuff and offering workers money to come use it to make money for the owners---either way, with the caveat that the stuff in question not be land. Is there a more modern precise definition that people use today, or is it just a slang term meaning "the rich", or "big corporations"? And what does it mean to be "anti-capitalist"? I have a problem with corporate personhood, and also with the fiduciary duty of company directors to their shareholders. Am I an anti-capitalist, or something else? Pardon my ignorance, but what do modern political thinkers mean when they say “capitalism”? What is it, what’s the definition?

I’m used to thinking of capitalism as the habit of owning stuff and offering workers the privilege of using it to make money, in return for a portion of that money. Alternatively, owning stuff and offering workers money to come use it to make money for the owners—-either way, with the caveat that the stuff in question not be land.

Is there a more modern precise definition that people use today, or is it just a slang term meaning “the rich”, or “big corporations”?

And what does it mean to be “anti-capitalist”? I have a problem with corporate personhood, and also with the fiduciary duty of company directors to their shareholders. Am I an anti-capitalist, or something else?

]]> By: Will Wilkinson / The Fly Bottle » Blog Archive » The Rawls Letter http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/17/rawlsiana/comment-page-1/#comment-148192 Will Wilkinson / The Fly Bottle » Blog Archive » The Rawls Letter Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:36:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4437#comment-148192 [...] Via Chris Bertram, I find this striking passage in a letter from John Rawls to Phillipe van Parijs: It seems to me that much would be lost if the European union became a federal union like the United States. Here there is a common language of political discourse and a ready willingness to move from one state to another. Isn’t there a conflict between a large free and open market comprising all of Europe and the individual nation-states, each with its separate political and social institutions, historical memories, and forms and traditions of social policy. Surely these are great value to the citizens of these countries and give meaning to their life. The large open market including all of Europe is aim of the large banks and the capitalist business class whose main goal is simply larger profit. The idea of economic growth, onwards and upwards, with no specific end in sight, fits this class perfectly. If they speak about distribution, it is [al]most always in terms of trickle down. The long–term result of this — which we already have in the United States — is a civil society awash in a meaningless consumerism of some kind. I can’t believe that that is what you want. [...] [...] Via Chris Bertram, I find this striking passage in a letter from John Rawls to Phillipe van Parijs: It seems to me that much would be lost if the European union became a federal union like the United States. Here there is a common language of political discourse and a ready willingness to move from one state to another. Isn’t there a conflict between a large free and open market comprising all of Europe and the individual nation-states, each with its separate political and social institutions, historical memories, and forms and traditions of social policy. Surely these are great value to the citizens of these countries and give meaning to their life. The large open market including all of Europe is aim of the large banks and the capitalist business class whose main goal is simply larger profit. The idea of economic growth, onwards and upwards, with no specific end in sight, fits this class perfectly. If they speak about distribution, it is [al]most always in terms of trickle down. The long–term result of this — which we already have in the United States — is a civil society awash in a meaningless consumerism of some kind. I can’t believe that that is what you want. [...]

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2006/03/17/rawlsiana/comment-page-1/#comment-148170 Matt Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:05:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4437#comment-148170 Thanks for posting this, Chris. These letters are mentioned by Samuel Freeman in his forthcomming book on Rawls but I'd not seen them published before. They are very interesting, both for seeing Rawls reply to a fairly common mis-reading of _LP_, but also his remarks on capitalism. Both, I think, are at least a bit wrong in their characterizations of the EU (treating things that are clearly still aspirational, such as the common market, as if they were established, etc.) and I really wish that _someone_ who quotes Mill on nationalism would at least acknowlegde that these remarks are made in the context of Mill's support of colonialims, his paternalism towards people's in their "nonage", etc. (Kymlicka is the most guilty of this, I think, but I'd really like to see someone at least acknowledge this.) But, they are interesting letters well worth looking at. Thanks again for posting them. (Also, the implication from the refering page, not the letters themselves, that Nagel's position is a restatement of the "central issue" of LP is at least a bit misleading, since Nagel's position is in some important ways different from Rawls's.) Thanks for posting this, Chris. These letters are mentioned by Samuel Freeman in his forthcomming book on Rawls but I’d not seen them published before. They are very interesting, both for seeing Rawls reply to a fairly common mis-reading of LP, but also his remarks on capitalism. Both, I think, are at least a bit wrong in their characterizations of the EU (treating things that are clearly still aspirational, such as the common market, as if they were established, etc.) and I really wish that someone who quotes Mill on nationalism would at least acknowlegde that these remarks are made in the context of Mill’s support of colonialims, his paternalism towards people’s in their “nonage”, etc. (Kymlicka is the most guilty of this, I think, but I’d really like to see someone at least acknowledge this.) But, they are interesting letters well worth looking at. Thanks again for posting them. (Also, the implication from the refering page, not the letters themselves, that Nagel’s position is a restatement of the “central issue” of LP is at least a bit misleading, since Nagel’s position is in some important ways different from Rawls’s.)

]]>